Category Archives: Uncategorized

Message from the Top of the World

The Arctic or North Pole fascinated me for years since this region is on the front line of climate change warming.  According to the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the average annual temperature of the Arctic increased almost twice as much as the average annual global temperature over the past 100 years.  Even more, according to NOAA, the summer Arctic sea ice has declined by 40% since 1979.  For several years now, the polar bear has become the ‘poster child’ for climate change since it hunts for seals on solid Arctic ice that is now rapidly sinking.  With their bright white color, living at one of the harshest climates on earth, and their propensity to hunt people if given a chance, polar bears have always fascinated me.

Thus, I was thrilled to hear this winter that an IMAX movie focusing on polar bears, To The Arctic,was coming to the St. Louis Science Center.  Since I worked at Science Center this winter, I recently got to watch To The Arctic.  With my interest in climate change, I was even more thrilled to read the film’s synopsis on the Science Center’s website that “To The Arctic tells the story of one mother polar bear’s determination to keep her cubs alive in the face of natural predators and a rapidly changing climate.”  I found this movie to be very inspirational with very beautiful shots of the frozen north.

Besides, the movie was narrated by Meryl Streep, one of my top favorite actors.  The music was by Paul McCartney, one of my all time favorite musicians.  They both provide solid and fun contributions to the film.
The film was also produced and directed by Greg MacGillivay, who also made a IMAX movie that I really loved back in 2000, Dolphins.  This looked like an All-Star team to motivate me to see a film about polar bears and the Arctic.

I was also spellbound by the opening helicopter shots of the roaring waterfalls at the at the edges of the cliffs of ice.  Sadly, the film eludes to the greater flow of these waterfalls probably due to climate change.  As the film continued to show incredible Arctic footage, the film also stated that summer now in the Arctic now lasts a month longer than what it did just decades ago.  As the film showed sea life, it mentioned ‘greenhouse gases releases from thousands of miles away is making the ocean more acidic and tougher for the plants and sea stars to survive.’

The real stars of the movie though were the polar bears.  I loved the shots of the adults gracefully swimming in the water.  Who knew such a bulky land animal could swim so fluidly.  Of course, the shots of the polar bear cubs playing were so adorable.  The image that stuck with me though was the mother turning around to confront a male who was stalking her and her cubs.  She successfully convinced the male with a stern glare and stand not to mess with her offspring this time.  Unfortunately, the film informs us that often males are eating cubs more often, even if they prefer seals.  The mother’s steel determination to protect her young made me even more impressed with polar bears.

The central message of the movie about polar bears having a hard time adjusting to climate change seemed to be very effectively delivered.  It did not seem to me to be too preachy or depressing.  It just laid out the unvarnished truth about climate change in the Arctic.  The daunting threat to the long term survival of polar bears is the shrinking Arctic sea ice, now melting faster than ever.  Polar bears depend upon floating sea ice to catch their favorite meal, the ringed seal.  Unfortunately, the film shows that the distance between the sea ice is growing.  The warming is leaving bears ‘on thin ice.’  If the distance between sea ice is too wide, it becomes a deadly swim for the bears, especially the cubs.

By 2050, the Arctic ice cap will be reduced to just a small fringe on the coast of Canada and Greenland.  Few climate and Arctic scientists would dispute this fact stated in the film.  Some scientists are more cautious and say the Arctic will be ice free in the summer by 2080, others are looking at the trends in sea ice loss and projecting 2013.  Either way, this spells bad news for the majestic and awe-inspiring polar bears.

With the images and stark message, this is where the film challenges us to do what we can individually and collectively to reduce the threat of climate change.  For the film says, ‘Just as mother polar bear fiercely protects her young, perhaps it can inspire all of us to protect the Arctic habitat.’  I am not a parent, but the film certainly inspired me to do more.  Hopefully, this message of parental care will connect with mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, mentors, and teachers seeing this film.

For I love the written quote at the beginning of the film by renowned ocean scientist, Dr. Sylvia Earle:
“As mothers, the greatest gift we can pass along to our children is a healthy planet.”

 

 

 

Titanic inspired me to be a Climate Change Communicator

To this day, I will never forget the first time I saw James Cameron’s movie, Titanic, in early January 1998.  I had just started working as a naturalist guide narrating the boat tours in the Flamingo outpost in Everglades National Park, Florida.  Part of my job was to be a ‘deck hand’ on the boat, assisting the captain with tying the lines, driving the boat on occasion, and participating in periodic man overboard training.  With a new job requiring me to be on a boat, watching for the safety of the passengers, boat safety was certainly on my mind when I saw the movie.  The soaring beautiful music of the first half of the movie when the boat was gliding across the ocean also played inside my head as our tour boats explored the waters of the Everglades.
As entertainment goes, besides the amazing musical score by James Horner, I also loved all aspects of the movie: the love story, the costumes, the way the ship was so vividly recreated, the acting by Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Kathy Bates, Billy Zane, etc.  The movie draws you in with an enticing love story, it then kicks you in the gut with the horrific sinking.  The sinking is what stayed on my mind ever since. All the innocent people who died lost their lives so tragically.
This disaster was totally a human caused disaster also.  White Star Lines wanted to break speed records to cross the Atlantic.  The Captain and crew ignored the iceberg radio warnings from other ships until it was too late.  The propeller, rudder, and engines were insufficient to steer the boat away from the iceberg once the boat was in eminent danger of hitting the iceberg.  To add insult to injury, there were only enough lifeboats to save half of the passengers on board.  Somehow, White Star Lines thought their boat was “unsinkable” and just followed the British maritime regulations for the minimum number of lifeboats.  Of the over 2,200 passengers on boat only about 700 people made it safely to the life boats.  Most of those who deaths were caused by hypothermia of the freezing waters of the Atlantic, not by drowning.
What was striking to me then in 1998 and to this day was the hubris and arrogance of White Star Lines and the ship’s designer, Harland and Wolff.   They thought they had outsmarted nature with their watertight compartments on board and other engineering advances.  They then foolishly believed their innovations would enable the ship to be “unsinkable.”  Well, we all know how that turned out once the ship hit that iceberg.
In January 1998, I was also deep into studying the Everglades to learn to be a naturalist to be able to explain the history of the Everglades to the passengers.  I was also amazed by the 20th century human arrogance about the Everglades was a ‘useless swamp’ by Americans moving into south Florida the same time that Titanic was constructed. Floridians sincerely thought from when Florida became a state in 1845 until the 1950s that if they could just drain the Everglades they would have this world class productive farmland and urban development.  However, the results were a disaster.  Up until the 1950s, the Everglades was teeming with birds, fish, alligators and other wildlife that was a sight to behold.  Up until the 1930s, locals talked about the skies so full of flocks of birds that it would block out the sun.  The old timers from around the same time used to mention that the creeks used to be so full of fish that you could walk across them.
However, by the 1960s, scientists had noticed that upwards of 90% of the total bird and fish population was gone due to the human draining of the Everglades.  The Army Corp of Engineers and the South Florida Management District dug over 1,800 canals to slice up the Everglades to drain it and provide water for the cities.  As a result, there was 68 threatened or endangered species.  However, the cities were actually running out of fresh water because the draining was allowing salt water from the Atlantic to creep into the underground water supply.
Just like the Titanic, the decline of the Everglades was a human caused disaster.  Ever since the year 2000, the state of Florida and the federal government has attempted to spend a couple of billion dollars to ‘restore the Everglades.’
In the same year that I saw the movie Titanic, I started educating myself about global warming.  Park visitors were asking me if global warming was impacting the Everglades.  Park visitors expect park rangers and naturalist guides to know everything.  Thus, I added global warming to my reading list to be able to answer their questions.  The first book I bought in a used book store was Laboratory Earth: The Planetary Gamble We Cannot Afford to Lose by Stanford University climate scientist, Dr. Stephen Schneider.  The book sounded an alarm bell that releasing so much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the massive global burning of fossil fuels is playing with the planet’s life support system.  A key point that Dr. Schneider made in this 1997 book was that “the faster and harder we push on nature, the greater the chances for surprises – some of which are likely to be nasty.”
Dr. Schneider did not really go into detail of what those nasty surprises could be in that book. However, by 2006, I noticed that he was sounding an alarm bell, similar to the men on the crow’s nest observation platform on the Titanic who first saw the approaching iceberg.   He states in the 2006 HBO climate change documentary, Too Hot to Handle that “It is getting warmer.  The storms are getting stronger.  And, the plants and animals are changing as you would expect as it is warming.  It is getting hard to say that this is an accident of nature.”
From seeing the movie Titanic, learning about the human caused damage to the Everglades, and reading Dr. Schneider’s Laboratory Earth book, lots of seeds were planted in me to eventually become a climate change communicator.
In the back of my mind, I always wondered if anyone else had noticed dangerous parallels with the Titanic sinking and the modern day threat of climate change.  It turned out that Titanic director James Cameron noticed the similarities.  Last week, the National Geographic TV Channel aired a two hour special Titanic: The Final Word with James Cameron.  In this show, Cameron, brought together a team of engineers, naval architects, artists, and historians to solve the lingering mysteries of why and how an “unsinkable” ship sank.  It was a fascinating special to watch.
This is how James Cameron connected the Titanic sinking to the current threat of climate change:
Part of the Titanic parable is of arrogance, of hubris, of the sense that we’re too big to fail. Well, where have we heard that one before?
There was this big machine, this human system, that was pushing forward with so much momentum that it couldn’t turn, it couldn’t stop in time to avert a disaster. And that’s what we have right now.
Within that human system on board that ship, if you want to make it a microcosm of the world, you have different classes, you’ve got first class, second class, third class. In our world right now you’ve got developed nations, undeveloped nations.
You’ve got the starving millions who are going to be the ones most affected by the next iceberg that we hit, which is going to be climate change. We can see that iceberg ahead of us right now, but we can’t turn.
We can’t turn because of the momentum of the system, the political momentum, the business momentum. There too many people making money out of the system, the way the system works right now and those people frankly have their hands on the levers of power and aren’t ready to let ‘em go.
Until they do we will not be able to turn to miss that iceberg and we’re going to hit it, and when we hit it, the rich are still going to be able to get their access to food, to arable land, to water and so on. It’s going to be poor, it’s going to be the steerage that are going to be impacted. It’s the same with Titanic.
I think that’s why this story will always fascinate people. Because it’s a perfect little encapsulation of the world, and all social spectra, but until our lives are really put at risk, the moment of truth, we don’t know what we would do. And that’s my final word.
Just as many contributing factors caused the sinking of the Titanic, three factors in 1998 colliding to inspire me to be a climate change communicator: connecting with the Everglades as a naturalist, reading Stephen Schneider for the first time, and seeing James Cameron’s Titanic.  As we reflect on the 100th anniversary of the sinking, may the Titanic also speak to you to reduce the threat of climate change.

The Debate is Over

Below is the text from my eight minute speech for St. Louis South County Toastmasters for the the April 11, 2012 meeting.  Because of this speech, I was voted by the other Toastmasters as the Best Speaker for this meeting.

 

Free Beer!  Who here is interested in free beer?  Or, if you cannot drink, how about free chocolate?  Well, unfortunately, I do not have beer or chocolate for you tonight.   As a Washington University scientist recently informed me, whenever scientists get together there is always lots of debate and arguing.  About the only thing they can agree upon is FREE BEER.

Besides, FREE BEER, there are lots of subjects were scientists are in agreement were THE DEBATE IS OVER, such as scientific observations that the Earth is round, the Earth revolves around the sun, the law of gravity, dinosaurs once existed, the Cubs will never win the World Series (Oops, sorry that is the agreement among St. Louis scientists), smoking causes cancer, and Neil Armstrong walked on the moon in 1969.   Finally, the debate about climate change is over among scientists since about 1979.  Unfortunately, many people are stuck on the idea that scientists disagree whether humans are causing climate change.  How many folks here tonight think this?

You are not alone.   In May 2011, a joint study was published by the Yale Project on Climate Change and the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, called Climate Change and the American Mind.  The results of the research showed only 39% of Americans think that most scientists think climate change is real.  However, 40% of Americans think there is still a lot of disagreement among scientists whether climate change is real.  Another 4% think that most scientists do not think climate change is real, and 18% just do not know.

Just like the old TV show Dragnet, I am here tonight to report “just the facts, ma’am.”  That fact is that there is a widespread agreement among scientists that climate change is real and caused by humans.

How do I know this?

First of all, there have been numerous scientific studies over the past 10 years proving this.  Most recently, June 21, 2010, an article was published in the scientific journal of United State National Academy of Science called, Expert credibility in climate change.  The lead author was William R.L. Anderegg, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University.   He focused on over 900 scientists who had published at least 20 papers on climate, as a way to concentrate on those most active in the field and whose work was subjected to close scrutiny. The authors then asked those scientists whether they were convinced or unconvinced by the evidence for human-induced climate change.  The results are very clear that 97 out of 100 working climate scientists accept the evidence for human-induced climate change.

Second, that study matched a 2009 scientific study published in the Journal of the American Geophysical Union by Dr. Peter t. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, called Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.  They surveyed over 3,000 earth scientists.  They also concluded that over 96% of climate scientists are convinced that climate change is real and caused by humans.

But wait a second Brian!  There are still around 3% of scientists who disagree with climate change, shouldn’t we hear them out?  My answer is NO.  I like how former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger responded “If 98 doctors say my son is ill and needs medication and two say, ‘No, he doesn’t, he is fine,’ I will go with the ninety-eight. It’s common sense – the same with global warming. We go with the majority, the large majority.” (Hot, Flat and Crowded by Thomas Friedman 2008, page 138)

Speaking of large majorities, how many folks here think that Toastmasters is the best support group you that can empower you to be a great public speaker?   Imagine you are preparing for a speech, maybe even a Toastmasters competition, where you really want to win.  Would you seek out the advice of someone who was skeptical of Toastmasters, or someone who rarely attends meeting, or someone who attends meeting but rarely gives speeches, or someone who attends Toastmasters regularly but is constantly critical of everything happening at the meeting.  No, if you want to wow the club with a speech and win a competition, you would seek advice with the best speakers of the club.

This is no different with scientists.  This is what the scientific peer review process is.  Scientists submit their scientific writings and presentations to their peers to be scrutinized.  After all the scientific debate and intense scrutiny, a vast overwhelming percent of scientists now say that climate change is real and caused by humans.  The debate is over among scientists whether climate change is happening.  As I heard Penn State climate scientist Dr. Richard Alley during his talk  at Climate One meeting at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco last December, “Scientists are no longer debating (whether humans are causing) climate change because that is no longer a useful discussion.”

Again, who here is interested in FREE CHOCOLATE or FREE BEER, one of the few things that scientists can agree on.  We then talked about various scientific studies showing how scientists have nearly a 97% agreement that climate change is real and caused by humans.  I now encourage you to move beyond the assumption that scientists disagree about climate change.

However, as I conclude my speech, I also realize the debate is not over among many of you about climate change.  Therefore, I will now spend about five minutes to open it up to your questions…

False Witnesses whose Testimonials Did Not Agree

It is Passover and Easter this weekend.  Many people are in the middle of reflecting on stories central to their spiritual traditions right now.  Growing up as a Christian, I was struck by the story about Jesus’s trail before the chief priests, the elders and the scribes.  The religious leaders wanted desperately to find damaging testimonials against Jesus so they would have enough evidence to convict him in a trial and obtain a death sentence against him.  The problem was, accord to Mark 14:56, “For many bore false witness against Jesus, but their testimonies did not agree.”

Amazingly, the chief priests had to keep road testing different testimonies against Jesus.  Finally, they stumbled across witnesses Jesus saying, “I will destroy this temple that is made with my hands, and in another day I will build another made without my hands.”  Right then, the chief priests thought they had a statement of blasphemy on which they could condemn Jesus to death.  Even then, Mark 14:59 points out that “But not even then did their testimony agree.”

Photo: topics.nytimes.com

This story reminds me of people who reject the science of climate change.  Amazingly, just like the witnesses at Jesus’ trail, the contrarians of climate change science cannot get their testimonies together either.  Naomi Klein wrote about this in the November 9, 2011 issue of The Nation in an article, Capitalism vs. the Climate.  The previous June, she attended the Heartland Institute’s Sixth International Conference on Climate Change, the annual largest gathering of those rejecting the science of climate change.  After hearing numerous speakers, Naomi noted that “no attempt is made to explain why each speaker seems to contradict the next. (Is there no warming, or there warming but it’s no problem? And if there is no warming, then what’s all this talk about sunspots causing temperatures to rise?)

http://www.meteo.psu.edu

Even more, I thought Dr. Michael Mann, climatologist at Penn State University also crystallized beautifully this idea of the ‘False Witnesses whose Testimonials Did Not Agree.’  On page 23 of his most recent 2012 book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, Dr. Mann talks about his “six stages of denial”:

1. CO2 is not actually increasing.
2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
5. Even if the current and projected future human effects on Earth’s climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
6. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.

On that same page, Dr. Mann also points out that “Contrarians have tended to retreat (to a higher number) on ‘the ladder of denial’ as the scientific evidence has become more compelling.”  In other words, those rejecting human caused climate change look to be all over the map with their closed-minded skepticism.  It is hard to pin them down why the science human caused climate change should be totally dismissed.  When they get together at a Heartland conference, someone should challenge them to coalesce under one certain point or theory on why climate change should be rejected.  Until then, the contrarians just sound like a cacophony of confusion.  Again it is like the false witnesses at Jesus’s trail who contradicted each other.  It did not matter that their testimonials did not agree they just have to find a way to condemn to death an innocent man teaching different religious ideas.

As I have grown concerned and alarmed about climate change, I had a few people tell me that “I should look at both sides of the issue.”  However, climate scientists such as Michael E. Mann, Stephen Schneider, James Hansen, Richard Alley, Wallace Broeker, Katharine Hayhoe, Richard Somerville, Gavin Schmidt, and many others have convinced me with their evidence and observations with their consistent message.   That message is climate change is real, caused by humans, over 95% of climate scientists agree upon this, climate change is harmful to people, and people can limit it if we choose.

The bottom line is that I have not heard any compelling evidence presented by contrarians of climate change.  Even more, I do not have time to listen to any contrarians when they provide false science that disagrees with each other.  Just as the contradicting witnesses at Jesus’s trial have not gone down well in history, the contrarians will not go well in history either as evidence for human caused climate change grows stronger by the day.

According to NASA, there is multiple lines of evidence pointing to the existence of human caused climate change, such as sea leve rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, declining sea ice, glacial retreat, increase in extreme weather events, and ocean acidification.  The Good News of Easter is that Christians believe that Jesus overcame his corrupt trial and execution to rise from the dead   The good news of climate change is we can also lessen the nastiest consequences of climate change if we act fast on the solutions collectively as a society and as individuals also.

Happy Easter!



Listen to the Man (Scott Mandia)

Recently, I met, Bob, a 5th grade teacher from a local St. Louis Catholic School who is doubtful about climate change.  Bob pressed me with how do scientists know climate change is real.  He then requested that I send him information about the science of climate change.

I e-mailed a friend of mine, Scott Mandia, to assist me.  Scott is a professor of meteorology at Suffolk County Community College in New York.  He is also the founder of The Climate Science Rapid Response Team and The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.  He is a leading national voice in engaging the public, media and his students about the serious threat of climate change.

Below is what Scott e-mailed to me:

“I think it is very important to show the pattern of warming shows heat-trapping.  Here is my standard reply:


1. Climate change science is probably the most scrutinized field of science today.

2. It is quite clear that the planet is warming:
 The oceans are gaining heat
 The land is warming
 The air is warming
 Ice is rapidly melting
 Animal and plant species are moving northward and upward
 Cold seasons are getting shorter while warm seasons are getting longer
 Maximum temperature records are increasing much faster than minimum temperature records etc.


3.  This warming can only result from:
 1) More incoming heat from space (sun)
 2) Less outgoing heat to space (earth emission)
     We have carefully measured the incoming solar radiation and it is NOT increasing. 
      In fact, we are at historic lows lately!


4.  Scientists have known that adding heat-trapping CO2 will cause less heat to be
          released to space. The pattern of warming matches “heat trapping”:
 1) Nights are warming faster than days (how could the sun cause this?)
 2) Winters are warming faster than summers 
    (sun is weakest in winter and strongest in summer so the sun is not to blame)
 3) The lowest layer of the atmosphere is warming while the upper layers are cooling 
   (again, cannot be the sun)
 4) Satellite and ground-based devices have MEASURED the decreasing heat in the CO2 band to space with a corresponding increased heat back to the surface in the CO2 band.


5. There are many lines of evidence for CO2 warming. 
 In fact, the increases in temperature over the past three decades is nearly 100% due to increased CO2. 
 The only reason we have not gotten even warmer is that pollutants suspended in the air called aerosols are reflecting some of the sunlight and are offsetting the CO2 warming.


6.  It is because of this overwhelming evidence that virtually every climate science expert and every international science academy agrees that humans are warming the climate.”


Scott then goes on to share his vision for America:

“Landing on the moon was certainly a big challenge and we did that!
Fixing the ozone hole was a big problem and we did that!
Solving acid rain was a big problem and we did that!

America is great because when we are faced with a challenge and especially with a threat, we collectively take action and we usually do quite well. The energy revolution is akin to the Internet revolution. I want America to take the lead. If we do, we create jobs, we sell products to China instead of buying them, we have cleaner air and water, greater national security, and energy savings put money directly into our pockets.


Imagine it is the Olympics and the event is the Clean Energy Race. The US track team has always won the big events before and appears to be in the best shape to win again. (Mention the three “we did that’s” above.) However, after the starting gun has fired, the American runner is just jogging while China, India, and others are sprinting. Don’t you want the American to win? There is still time for her to step it up but the window of opportunity is getting shorter every year because she is falling farther and farther behind.”

I thought this was an outstanding tool for climate change communicators, like me.  I asked Scott for his approval to share his message with others.  His generous response: “Feel free to share with all.”


As you read this, I hope you use Scott’s message when you communicating climate change to friends and family members who are undecided or doubtful about global warming.

Thank you, Scott, for this tool.  I promise to use it wisely and effectively with Bob, the 5th grade school teacher, and others when I discuss climate change.

Connecting with animals Can Inspire Us to Save the Planet

WBS Director, Jeff Meshach with Mariah, the Golden Eagle

Recently, I got to look into the eyes of a Golden Eagle named Mariah.  What a beautiful bird!

The Crestwood Sunset Hill Rotary Club invited me to attend their weekly luncheon meeting last Wednesday, March 21, 2012.  I came to scope out the meeting since I am invited to speak at a future club meeting on Wednesday, April 19th.  This Rotary Club invited me to speak on carbon footprints.  I was chosen because of my interest in climate change and my experience as a public speaker on this subject as a park ranger and a St. Louis Toastmaster.

I choose to attend this meeting because I wanted to hear the presentation of Walter Crawford, Jr. He is the Executive Director of World Bird Sanctuary, located just outside of St. Louis in Valley Park, Missouri.   The World Bird Sanctuary (WBS) rehabilitates birds of prey, such as hawks, falcons, eagles, owls, vultures, and other animals.  The Sanctuary also provides education on-site and traveling outreach presentations to the public all around St. Louis and the United States.  Walt was speaking about his 35 year experience rehabilitating birds, caring for them, traveling with them, and showing birds of prey to the general public.

Walt was a very engaging speaker and the Rotary audience hung on every word he said.  He wove amazing stories of being pulled over by the police with the birds of prey perched in passenger seat.  He was able to use his charm and show the birds to talk the police out of giving him tickets.  He talked about keeping eagles in his hotel room and talking a few ladies into seeing the birds in his room.  He shared how the birds are extremely loyal to him or other trainers at the WBS.  It was spell bounding to also hear how the birds always return to the trainer when they are flown before a crowd of 50,000 plus people at a St. Louis Cardinals baseball game.  The huge and very noisy crowds of people never bothers the birds because they are strictly focused returning to the trainer.

The best part though was when the Director of World Bird Sanctuary and fellow trainer, Jeff Meshach,  brought out the Golden Eagle, Mariah.  She is nearly 40 years old and has lost much of her sight.  The audience, especially an 8 year old and a 10 year old boy in attendance, felt awestruck by the bird.  Walt knew bringing the birds out to show people are the key to his successful presentations.  He knows firsthand that people will not be inspired to save nature, unless they can experience it with their own eyes, such as being a few feet away from a live eagle.  He even pointed out the obvious, “You cannot save something unless you love it.”  

Walter Crawford, Jr; Execute Director of WBS

I then was so enthralled with his insightful wisdom that he shared with the group and then with me after the presentation.  He also stated, “Conservation is not a philosophy.  It is how we should live every single day.”  Walt’s mentor was in the 1970s Marlon Perkins, past Director of the St. Louis Zoo.  Marlon Perkins was also the host of the TV show Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom that I watched as a child.  Walt also has continued Marlon’s philosophy that showing animals to “getting people to understand their connection to nature.”

Even more, staying connected with nature will have an impact on you.  Walt stated, “Everything you eat, breath, and drink is a product of what you do.”  Even more, “Everything you touch has an effect on you.”  His words did strike deeply into my heart as I strive to be a climate change communicator and do all I can to promote the protection of nature and the natural world.  Walt really was a ‘Sage on the Stage’ that day.  He certainly motivated me to be a better steward of our planet.

I really felt blessed that I got to see his presentation.  Interacting with Walt, Jeff, and Mariah was the highlight of last week for me.  I also want to thank the members of the Crestwood Sunset Hills Rotary Club, such as Randy Martin, President Jenny Bell, Wesley Finke, Bob Alexander, Randy Martin, and Carl Deutsch for allowing me to feel so welcome at their meeting.

Walt’s words of wisdom reminded me of the Baba Dioum quote:
“In the end, we will only conserve what we love.
We will only love what we understand.
We will understand only what we are taught or allowed to experience.”


I also want to share this video that was given to me and all the other participants at the Earth to Sky: Communicating Climate Change Conference in Shepardstown, West Virginia in September, 2011, sponsored by the National Park Service, NASA, and Fish & Wildlife Service.

I also wanted to share my central philosophy (which is very similar to Walter Crawford’s)
Think Globally and Act Daily


And:
Each and everyone one of us can change the world.
We can do this by 
1. The way we vote
2. The products we buy
3. The attitudes we share with each other. 

Dr. Michael E. Mann’s Hockey Stick Book is a ‘Very Gripping Read’

If you want the latest perspective on climate change science, especially the creation of the famous `hockey stick graph,’ then I highly recommend reading Dr. Michael E. Mann’s book, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.” I heard Dr. Mann speak at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco last December. At the end of his talk, he mentioned his up-coming book about the creation of hockey stick graph and his perspective of the onslaught of attacks he received from the contrarians of climate science.
I was eager to read his book and hear his perspective. Before I saw Dr. Mann, what I mostly knew about him was myths perpetrated by his attackers, such as `the hockey stick has been debunked,’ and the fake Climate-gate scandal where supposedly Dr. Mann had `found a trick’ to `hide the decline’ when he created the famous hockey stick graph. I knew these myths were utter nonsense, but I still wanted to hear his point of view. The book did not disappoint me at all.
As a climate change communicator, I did learn much to share when I engage people on the subject of climate change. First, I liked his analogy of `The Serengeti Strategy.’ Lions attack zebras at the edge of herd because the zebras’ stripes make it hard for the lions to see individual zebras in the center of the heard. Deep down, the contrarians know scientific agreement on climate change is overwhelming and extremely strong multiple lines of evidence that climate change exists. Thus, the contrarians desperately nitpick at the hockey stick graph and personally attack individual scientists like Dr. Mann.
In the first chapter, I thought Dr. Mann did a superb job of immediately defending himself against his attackers’ lies. In the fabricated Climate Gate hoax, contrarians loved to wave the stolen e-mail quote of Dr. Mann’s “trick” in assembling the hockey stick graph.   Mike talked about growing up and playing computer games in the early 1980s. Even more, he was deeply influenced by the 1983 anti-nuclear film, War Games. Similar to the movie, he wanted to program his computer to run faster to “learn” from previous games how to play tic-tac-toe better each time. Thus, he discovered a “trick” to get the computer program to learn faster. Mike then defined “trick” on page 6 as “the term scientists and mathematicians often use to denote a clever shortcut to solving a vexing problem.”
What is crazy is contrarians cherry picked a word, “trick,” in the fake scandal. However, they offered no evidence of any kind of “trick” or deception by Dr. Mann. As mentioned in this book, there have now been over 8 independent reviews of the poorly named `Climate Gate’ scandal, including the British Parliament and 2 separate reviews by Dr. Mann’s own university, Penn State. Every time, Dr. Mann was cleared of any wrong doing and the investigating commissions found no devious “tricks” when he constructed the iconic hockey stick graph.
In chapter two, I really latched onto Dr. Mann’s “6 Stages of Climate Change Denial”:
1. CO2 is not increasing.
2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the impact of continued human caused greenhouse gas emissions will be small.
5. Even if the current and projected future human effects on Earth’s climate are not negligible, the changes are going to be good for us.
6. Even if the changes are not going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to these changes; besides, it is too late to do anything about it, and/or the technological fix is bound to come when we really need it.
This ladder was very helpful because I find contrarians to be all over the map to rejecting the science of climate change. They cannot seem to coalesce around a single point of contention. As a matter of fact, when they do gather at their contrarian Heartland Conferences, they contradict each other, clinging to various rungs of Dr. Mann’s ladder. Dr. Mann even points out on page 23 that “Contrarians have tended to retreat up the ladder of denial as the scientific evidence has been more compelling.” This reminds of the movie Titanic when the stranded passengers where running up to cling to projected stern of the boat as the bow was sinking into the water.
Photo source:  http://www.meteo.psu.edu

The contrarians and undecided folks really need to read Dr. Mann’s detailed explanation in the book how he came up with the hockey stick graph since 1996. He created with cooperation from many other climate scientists, and using vast amounts of tree ring, ice cores, corals, lake & ocean sediment and a smattering of the climate recordings. It was amazing how contrarians so viciously attacked it, ever since, like lions on the Serengeti, trying to find some way to discredit it.

Like Mike points out in the book, numerous other scientists have re-affirmed the Hockey Stick graph with their independent research, data, and computer models. Contrarians love to claim that Mike’s graph was “debunked” because it was not used in the 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report, unlike the previous IPCC reports. Mike points out on page 173 that “the purpose Summary for Policy Makers (in the 2007 IPCC Report) was to highlight new findings, not old ones.” Furthermore, he states “the original (1999 hockey stick graph) was one of the dozen reconstructions shown in the IPCC paleoclimate chapter, which collectively formed the basis for the strengthened conclusions of…the anomalous nature of recent warming.”

From meeting Dr. Mann and reading his book, he struck me as a soft-spoken, humble guy who just wants to be a scientist. He even states on page 253, he just wants to be “left alone analyzing data, constructing and running theoretical climate models, and pursuing curiosity-driven science.” Mike does not come across as the kind of guy who is the life-of-the-party telling jokes, seeking the center of attention, and trying to impress people with his accomplishments. He is probably the polar opposite of the Dos Equis `Most Interesting Man in the World’ beer ads.  Dr. Mann is a dedicated climate scientist.

My observation is Mike is an incredible man of integrity. He has accomplished greatly to the world of climate science with the hockey stick graph, co-founding the Realclimate.org with Gavin Schmidt and Stefan Rahmstorf, and his other scientific publications and books. This is why his attackers still cannot seem to pin any dirt on him. His scientific body of work is impeccable. The Hockey Stick Graph is a result of years of meticulous research by him and lots of other scientists.
With his honesty, integrity to pursue impactful climate science, and his soft spoken nature, I find the personal attacks, threats, disinformation, and endless political investigations he has received from contrarians very disgusting. However, I am glad to hear that he ends the book by stating that in the future, “My fellow scientists will be fighting back, and I look forward in joining them.”
This is the second book I read by Dr. Mann. I read the first, Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming about a year ago. It has excellent pictures and illustrations to highlight the findings of the 2007 IPCC Report. I used graphs from the book in my own climate change presentations. My minor regret is that I did not have Dr. Mann sign my book when I met him last December. However, now I have two books for him to sign next time I meet him: Dire Predictions and now The Hockey Stick & the Climate Wars, which I highly recommend also.

What do Hummers and Obesity have in common?

Meramec Coal Plant, location Oakville, Missouri. Image Source: sierraclub.org

In one word: everything.  In a nutshell, we humans are changing the planet’s climate by releasing over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year.  We release all this carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas) to drive our cars, obtain electricity for our homes and businesses, deforestation and to maintain a very consumptive lifestyle.  This is clearly not sustainable for our planet and our children.  I will never forget reading in the November/December 2002 issue ofSierra Magazine a short article, “Using up the Planet.”  In the article, researchers at Redefining Progress noted that

“In the early 1960s, humans used up 70 percent of the earth’s productive capacity.  By the 1980s, we started to exceed nature’s annual output. In 1999 we were using 125 percent of capacity. At this rate, says lead researcher Mathis Wackernagel, ‘we may have to prepare for ecological bankruptcy.’”

Affluent societies like, the United States, over consumption of the planet’s resources has lead to owning questionable status symbols like GM Hummers and other SUVs, ‘McMansion’ type houses, super large flat screen tvs, and other electronic gadgets.  The outer consumption that leads to climate change though does not end there.

This massive over consumption of resources also extends to our bodies.  In the United States, too many people are eating way too many fatty and unhealthy foods.  According to the US Center for Disease and Prevention, over one third of Americans are overweight and another third are obese.  Just as we may be stripping the planet of our natural resources, excessive over-eating can much damage to our bodies.  It increases health risks such as heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, and even shortening life spans.  An August 25, 2009 edition of USA Today reported that “extremely obese people (over 5% of the US population) — those who are 80 or more pounds over a normal weight — live three to 12 fewer years than their normal-weight peers.”

Overeating is the opposite side of the same coin as climate change.  This has been a central thought of mine ever since I saw a segment on Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution show on ABC network in April, 2010.  Chef and media personality Jamie Oliver traveled to Huntington, West Virginia, one of the unhealthiest cities in America, to try to convince the locals to eat healthier.  He has a really hard time making the case to a central figure on the town, ‘Rod the Dawg,’ a local radio talk DJ.  With a very creative message, Jamie takes Rod to a local funeral home to show the extra large caskets in the funeral home.  Jamie’s point: as Americans have increased in girth, funeral homes had to respond by creating larger caskets.  You can watch the show segment here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfTyQ702NIE

 

For human beings to live sustainable with our planet, we are going to have to forgo the Hummers and greatly reduce the intake of those fatty foods.  Exercise and fresh air should be more valued than TV.  Public transportation, bicycling, and walking should be more of a status symbol than a Hummer.  Caring for the planet also means caring for the way that we treat our bodies.

 

Extending an Olive Branch to a Climate Change Advesary

Image Source:
http://peace.mennolink.org/clipart.html 

 

I will never forget my mentor Steve telling me, “There is only one way can deal with your enemies, you engage them.”

His point was ignoring people never inspires them to change.  The best way to reach your adversaries is through conversation.  My friends have huge debates how to engage those who reject the science of climate change and spread misinformation.  Some friends like to engage them in a vigorous debate.  Other friends, citing evidence of prominent reports such as Global Warming’s 6 Americas Report in May 2011 and The Psychology of Climate Change Communication, point out that it can be a huge waste of time to engage people who are completely dismissive of the science of climate change.

I agree more with those who say it is a waste of time to chat with people who are so hostile to the message of climate change.  I have even said so many times myself: The hardest substance in the universe is the human mind.  Once a mind is made up, it can be impossible to change it.”  Thus, I try not to engage closed minded skeptics about climate change.  I have had little success changing their minds.
However, last Sunday evening, I saw an opening to engage my enemies that hopefully would make Steve proud.  I read Brian Merchant’s article from May 12, 2011, “Do Climate Skeptics change their mind?”  In the article, Brian asked Anthony Watts, the meteorologist who runs a very popular climate-skeptic blog, Watts Up With That, what could lead him to accept climate science. A “starting point for the process,” he said, wouldn’t begin with more facts but instead with a public apology from the high profile scientists who have labeled him and his colleagues “deniers.”

Below is the letter I sent to Anthony on his website.  I never did hear back from Anthony.  No surprise.  That did not bother me.  He probably receives plenty of e-mails.  Or, he could have been suspicious about the intent of my e-mail.  That’s his judgment call.

The only disappointing response was when I posted the letter on the Facebook page “Global Warming Fact of the Day.”  Overall, the feedback was very negative from the group about my attempts to reach out to Mr. Watts.  I received responses, such as “No reason to believe that ‘nice’ might work with psychopaths,” “Abandon “denier”? OK, sure. I’ll try to consistently use “denialist” instead,” “(Anthony Watts) is a hack, as well as a cultist who is a clear and present danger to civilization.” and “Walks like a denier; talks like a denier; quacks like a …”

Somehow, they thought I had grand delusions I could change Anthony’s mind over night.  Nope.  I even expressed that in the letter.  However, I saw an opportunity to extend an olive branch.  Anthony stated in the article that he could be more open to the science if prominent people apologized for using the term “Deniers.”  I decided to call his bluff on this.  Anthony decided not to take up my challenge.  Oh, well.  Life goes on.  There was no harm in trying.

I think Steve would be proud of me also for taking this action.  I did an engage an enemy, in a peaceful way with an open heart.  I remember Steve once telling me when it comes to doing the right thing and saving nature, that “At the very least, you have to try.”  Steve, I salute you for teaching me to be a peaceful warrior for the planet.

Mr. Watts:
I just read the article from Slate by Brian Merchant, “Do Climate Skeptics Change Their Minds?” from May 12, 2011. I really enjoyed the article. In the article, the author, Brian Merchant, I asked you what could lead you to accept climate science. Your response: ‘A “starting point for the process wouldn’t begin with more facts but instead with a public apology from the high profile scientists who have labeled you and your colleagues ‘deniers.'”
I thought this was very intriguing. I really try hard not to use this term, since you and your colleagues do find the term so offensive. I am extremely concerned about climate change and I do speak out in the St. Louis area about this issue. I recently went to AGU this past December and met so many top climate change communicators and scientists. I really enjoyed getting to know them. Any chance that if I approached them about dropping the term “deniers” and apologizing to you for using it, would you be more open to hearing about the science of climate change?
Unfortunately, there seems to be an incredible amount of animosity between you and the other side. They may need you to apologize for some things said also. Any chance you are willing to meet them halfway if they are willing to drop the term “deniers”?
I am extremely concerned about the health of the planet with burning so much greenhouse gases. I really do not like all the pollution it creates for the cities and rural areas. I am really concerned about the future of the planet we are leaving behind for my nieces & nephews, the children of the planet, indigenous people across the world, and poor people living at sea level by all of us dumping such copious amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I am very skeptical we can maintain civilization as we know it by our heavy reliance of fossil fuels. As I heard Dr. Richard Alley say in ‘Earth the Operator’s Manual, “We are burning through fossil fuels a million times faster than nature created them for us. Sooner or later they are going to run out.”
I just ask that you read this letter with an open mind and heart. I realize you have invested a lot of time and energy in ‘WattsUpWithThat.’ For the sake of my nieces & nephews, the children across the world, indigenous people across the world, and folks in poverty who may be in biggest harm’s way to the consequences of climate change, I ask you for a more civil and open dialogue for those you disagree with about climate change. I am more than willing to help you with these efforts, starting with not using the term “deniers” myself and encouraging others I know not to use that term also.
I wish you peace.
Sincerely,
Brian Ettling

The Silence that Speaks to Us

            I have a friend and mentor, Steve, who was a ranger in Everglades National Park in Florida.  In his spare time, he would drive up to a scenic overlook.  He loved to sit there and look over the beautiful scene of a saw grass prairie.  It looks like this.  One occasion, when he was there for a time, a park visitor drives his car up to the nearby parking lot.  The visitor grabs his camera from the car and quickly runs to the overlook.  When he gets there, the visitor felt disappointed in the lack of action and the flatness of the plain saw grass vista.  So he mumbles, “Nothing.”  Steve smiled at him.  He looked at the scene, stretched out his arms, and proclaimed, “Everything.”
 
            For the past 20 years, I work in our nation’s national parks.  During that time, I notice that many park visitors do not take enough time to appreciate and enjoy these spectacular areas.  According National Park Service surveys, the average visitor spends about four hours visiting at national park.  Of those visitors, eighty percent of their time is spent inside their car driving around the park.  Those folks spend the remaining time outside their car using the bathroom, getting food, and buying souvenirs.
            My focus today is to encourage you to spend more time in nature.  We need to do this for three reasons:  for inter peace to balance the turmoil in our world, for renewal from the stress and demands of our own lives, and because nature can actually give us guidance on how to live our lives.
            First, as we all know, the chaos in the world is very intense right now with war, recession, terrorism, gas prices, and other problems.  It is so important not to let these problems overwhelm us.  Anne Frank, the teenage girl who was a victim of the Nazi Holocaust almost seventy years ago, wrote in her famous diary on February 23, 1944.
“The best remedy for those who are afraid, lonely or unhappy is to go outside somewhere where they can be quiet, alone with the heavens, nature and God.  Because only then does one feel that all is as it should be…amidst the simple beauty of nature.
 
 In the year 2012, nature can still provide comfort for us when it seems like the world is aiming for us.
            Second, we need to spend quiet time in natural areas not just to escape from the outer problems of the world.  We also need to spend time in nature to refresh ourselves from the stress and obligations of our own lives.  Our own lives carry the demands of paying bills, work, family, school, and even preparing speeches for tonight.  Nature can give us a temporary peace and courage to face our problems.
“Everyone needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to the body and soul alike.”
 
The beauty of nature can provide hope and inspiration for our stressful lives.
            My third point, not only can nature uplift us from the anxiety of the world and our own problems; nature can also teach us how to live and function in the world.  As you spend some quiet time in nature, you will hear your inner wisdom.  You may even be open to the beauty of the scenery speaking to you.  As John Denver sang over thirty years ago:
 “But the Colorado Rocky Mountain high,
   I have seen it rain and fire in the sky
   You can talk to God and listen to the
   casual reply
   Rocky Mountain high, Colorado…”
            I can hear what you are thinking right now.  Brian, I do not have time or money to travel to the Everglades, the Rocky Mountains, Yosemite or other wilderness areas.  However, the beauty is you do not need to leave St. Louis to enjoy nature.  A walk in nearby Power Valley State Park can be quality time in nature.  If you have woods behind your house, take advantage of them.  My favorite activity is go hiking in nearby Bee Tree County Park that overlooks the Mississippi River.  You do not need much time either.  Just ten minutes in a natural area will do a world of good for you.
           Now we have talked about how spending time in nature can provide inner peace, renewal and guidance for our lives.  Before I end my speech, I want to share a story how spending time in nature can also help us develop our sense of humor.  One day a man was walking in the woods when he thought he heard the voice of God.
The man said, “God, can I ask you a question?”
God said, “Sure, go ahead.”
The man said, “God what is a million years to you?”
God said, “Well, a million years is as a second to me.”
The man asks, “What is a million dollars to you?
God says, “To me, a million dollars is as a penny.”
So the man asks, “God can I have a penny?”
God says, “Sure, just a second.”
Spending time in nature can be the silence that speaks to us, even providing us with a sense of humor.  Unfortunately, my friend Steve passed away over four years ago from cancer.  All I have left of him is this picture, as well as his wisdom, humorous stories, and his love of nature.  Steve would want me to conclude my speech tonight saying,
“Spending time in nature even if it is a saw grass prairie, is not NOTHING, it is EVERYTHING.”